JETS 37/3 (September 1994) 381-394
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY SPIRITUAL?
REFLECTIONS ON SOME PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION
D. A. CARSON*
The current interest in spirituality is both salutary and frightening.
It is salutary because in its best forms it is infinitely to be preferred over
the assumed philosophical materialism that governs many people, not only
in the western world but in many other parts as well. It is salutary wherever it represents a self-conscious rebellion against the profound sense of
unreality that afflicts many churches. We speak of "knowing" and "meeting
with" and "worshiping" the living God, but many feel that the corporate exercises are perfunctory and inauthentic, and in their quietest moments they
wonder what has gone wrong.
It is frightening because "spirituality" has become such an ill-defined,
amorphous entity that it covers all kinds of phenomena an earlier generation
of Christians, more given to robust thought than is the present generation,
would have dismissed as error, or even as "paganism" or "heathenism." 1
Today "spirituality" is an applause-word—that is, the kind of word that is
no sooner uttered than everyone breaks out in applause. In many circles it
functions in the spiritual realm the way "apple pie" functions in the culinary
realm: Who is bold enough to offer a caution, let alone a critique?
What is quite certain is that the topic currently generates enormous
interest.
I. SOME CURRENT DEFINITIONS, EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT
Despite the contention of J. W. Conn that originally spirituality was "a
christian term—from Paul's letters," 2 it is nothing of the kind. True,
"spirit" and "spiritual" are found in the NT, but very few writers on spirituality begin with inductive study of such terms in order to establish what
"spirituality" means. As a term "spirituality" emerged from French Catholic
thought, though for the last century or so it has been common in Protestantism as well. Earlier writers could speak of "the spiritual life" and mean
something rather more narrowly defined than Paul meant by "the spiritual
* D. A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015.
1
Cf. the well-considered warnings against what he calls the "new spirituality"—various
forms of new-age-related mysticism—issued by G. R. Lewis, "The Church and the New Spirituality," JETS 36 (1993) 433-444.
2
J. W. Conn, "Spirituality," The New Dictionary of Theology (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan,
1987) 972.
382
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
m a n " in 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 2, b u t it is this focus on "the spiritual life" t h a t ultimatel y led to C h r i s t i a n coinage of t h e t e r m "spirituality "
In fact in t h e history of t h e C h r i s t i a n Church u n t i l t h e Reformation t h e r e
were m a n y different elements connected with spiritual life, only a few of
t h e m achieving prominence a t any time or place s a c r a m e n t s , community,
prayer, asceticism, m a r t y r d o m , vows of poverty and/or celibacy, images, mo!
nasticism, a n d much more Increasingly, spiritual life came to be associated
with t h e p u r s u i t of perfection, so far as t h a t is possible this side of t h e cons u m m a t i n g Visio Dei T h u s it was not for all C h r i s t i a n s It was for those who
particularly p a n t e d after God T h u s although spirituality (to use t h e t e r m
anachromstically) embraced all of life, it embraced all of life only for some
believers By t h e beginning of t h e e i g h t e e n t h century Giovanni S c a r a m e l h
(1687!1752 ) of t h e Society of J e s u s , building on long!established t r a d i t i o n s ,
sharply distinguished ascetic and mystical theology as t h e p r i m a r y compon e n t s of t h e study of spiritua l life The former h a s to do with t h e exercises
to which all C h r i s t i a n s who aspire to perfection will devote themselves,
while t h e l a t t e r deals with t h e extraordinary s t a t e s of consciousness a n d
their secondary manifestations durin g times of mystical union with God
T h us "spirituality" became a discipline, "spiritual theology," to be distinguished from dogmatic theology, which tells us w h a t m u s t be believed, a n d
from moral theology, which tells us how we m u s t act These are t h e essential distinctions t h a t govern t h e classic t r e a t m e n t by Ρ P o u r r a t 3
In his three!volume history Bouyer sought a more precise definition 4
Christian spirituality (or any other spirituality) is distinguished from dogma
by the fact that, instead of studying or describing the objects of belief as it were
in the abstract, it studies the reactions which these objects arouse in the religious consciousness But, rightly, it does not entertain the pseudo!scientific,
and in fact wholly extravagant, prejudice that the understanding of the objects
polarizing the religious consciousness is essentially foreign to an understanding of this consciousness itself On the contrary, spirituality studies this
consciousness only in its living relationship with those objects, in its real apprehension
of what it believes Dogmatic theology, therefore, must always
be presupposed as the basis of spiritual theology, even though the latter concerns itself with the data of the former only under the relationship that they
entertain with the religious consciousness
T h a t last point, t h a t spiritual theology presupposes dogmatic theology, a
point emphasized by both P o u r r a t a n d Bouyer, is denied today by some aut h o r s , 5 who m a i n t a i n t h e reverse Spirituality is w h a t shapes our theology
We m u s t experience something before we proceed to a r t i c u l a t e it in dogmatic forms P a r t of t h e difference between t h e s e two perspectives, one suspects, stems from t h e concern of t h e former to r e l a t e dogmatics to experience
3
Ρ P o u r r a t , Christian Spirituality
4 vols (Westminster, 1953!55) Cf also t h e i m p o r t a n t
work by C J o n e s , G Wainwright and E Yarnold, The Study of Spirituality
(Oxford Oxford Uni
versity 1986)
4
L Bouyer et al , History of Christian Spirituality,
3 vols (London B u r n s and Oates, 1 9 6 3 !
68) 1 vin
5
E g R Ν Flew The Idea of Perfection (Oxford Oxford University, 1934), G Wainwright,
Doxology (London Epworth, 1980)
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY SPIRITUAL?
383
in the experience of most individuals, and the concern of the latter to relate
experience to dogmatics in the genesis and formation of a movement.
It is worth pausing to draw attention to several features that have already come to light.
1. Catholicism (and Orthodoxy too, for that matter) has invested far more
heavily in "spirituality" studies than has Protestantism,
owing in no small
measure to the emphasis (until very recent times) on the pursuit of perfection (sometimes thought of as mystical union) by a subset of Christians, by
"elite" Christians (though of course they would never think of themselves
under such a term), not infrequently monastics. This traditional Catholic
interest is still reflected in such details as, say, the relative amounts of
space given to the subject in recent Catholic and evangelical dictionaries of
theology, 6 or the number of books congregating around the theme of spirituality published by Paulist Press and by Zondervan or Eerdmans.
2. At least since the eighteenth century "spirituality" could refer either to
certain approaches to the knowledge of God (still being defined) or to the
study of such
approaches.
3. The parenthetical remark "or any other spirituality" (in the extended
quote from Bouyer above) reflects another development that is harder to handle. In the context this refers to spirituality in non-Christian religions: Hindu
spirituality, Islamic spirituality, Buddhist spirituality, animist spirituality,
and so forth. In the context of Bouyer's work—a study of the history of
Christian spirituality, based for the most part on textual evidence—nonChristian spirituality may be an eminently useful category: It refers to
something like the interplay between dogma and religious consciousness in
non-Christian religions, based, once again, on textual (or other largely phenomenological) evidence. But is the related dogma true in each instance?
Does it matter? Is the "spirituality" related to these mutually exclusive systems of dogma valid or true or useful or helpful when the dogma to which
it is tied is not true? Are we dealing only with the mind, the stuff of human
consciousness? Or if we are insisting that there is a transcendent dimension
to spirituality, is that transcendent dimension the same for the Christian
who believes the gospel and for the animist who is imploring the spirits for
a fat baby? Do we adopt the position of the radical pluraliste who assume
that virtually every form of spirituality is as valid as any other form, and
this in itself becomes a way of authenticating the relative truthfulness of all
dogma? In that case, of course, one must say something fuzzy—for example,
argue that although these systems of dogma transparently contradict one
6
The article by J. W. Conn, already mentioned, takes up 14 pages out of 1106; the corresponding article by T. R. Albin in New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1988)
takes up less than two pages out of 738. One should also reckon with the substantial number of
articles in the Catholic volume on related themes, most of which have no parallel in the InterVarsity volume.
384
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
another they all point equivalently to some greater system beyond the ken
of any one of them. To such questions I shall briefly return.
This side of Vatican II, Catholic emphases on spirituality have been less
associated with the pursuit of perfection by the elite than with growth in
Christian experience by all Catholics. Thus the Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church issued a universal call to holiness: "All the faithful of whatever
rank . . . are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection
of charity" (L.G.40). The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy asserts that
the primary goal of the entire Vatican II council is to intensify Christian
spirituality, "the daily growth of Catholics in Christian living" (S.C.I). This
is given as one of the reasons for making the liturgy, and especially the
mass, more accessible (S.C.2). At the same time it can scarcely be denied
that post-Vatican-II Catholicism has fostered a diversity of views on spirituality, many of which are less and less eucharistically centered. Now a
great deal of attention is focused on feminist spirituality, the spirituality of
a life of poverty or of social transformation, and so forth. A great deal of contemporary publication in the area of spirituality explores what are judged
to be complementary dimensions: the philosophical, the psychological, the
theological, the mystical, the social, and so forth. It is becoming exceedingly
difficult to exclude anything—absolutely anything—from the purview of
spirituality, provided that there is some sort of experiential component in
the mix. In this environment the pursuit of such "spirituality" is far from
being a merely Catholic interest. 7 In this light one of the most recent definitions of spirituality to appear in a Catholic publication is entirely coherent, even if so all-embracing as to be rather daunting: 8
The term spirituality refers to both a lived experience and an academic discipline. For Christians, it means one's entire life as understood, felt, imagined,
and decided upon in relationship to God, in Christ Jesus, empowered by the
Spirit. It also indicates the interdisciplinary study of this religious experience,
including the attempt to promote its mature development.
During the last century or so, "spirituality" has become part of the regular
vocabulary of Protestants. Until the last few decades, when liberal Protestantism's conception of spirituality has gradually expanded to roughly the
same dimensions as that within post-Vatican-II Catholicism, Protestantism's
interest in spirituality has largely been that associated with godliness and
the devotional life in traditional evangelicalism. Although "spirituality" was
not a term in vogue among the English Puritans, for instance, it is hard not
to appreciate their emphases on conformity to Christ, personal moral examination, confession of sin, meditation on the Word, full-hearted use of "the
means of grace." William Law's A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life9 is,
within this tradition, a classic in spirituality. Much more recently, and from
Cf e g The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality (ed G S. Wakefield, Philadelphia Westminster, 1983)
8
Conn, "Spirituality" 972
9
Written in 1728
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY
SPIRITUAL*?
385
a slightly different doctrinal structure within the heritage of evangelicalism,
Richard Foster and Richard Lovelace have issued somewhat similar calls. 10
Building on the Puritans, not a few of Packer's books are essentially works
designed, at least in part, to nurture the spiritual life.11
This is the matrix, then, out of which so many books and articles on
spirituality (whatever that word means) are now being produced. I have
barely begun to mention the resources available. For example, there is a
substantial literature on Orthodox spirituality. Perhaps one of the most
accessible entry points to this heritage is a little book by an anonymous
monk of the eastern Church. 12 A very remarkable book explores the patterns of life of several Catholic and Orthodox believers who are prepared
to be "fools for Christ's sake." 13 The medieval emphasis linking voluntary
poverty and perfection still finds its advocates. 14 The great boom in feminist spirituality is now calling forth, from within the presuppositions of
that heritage, reflections on male spirituality. 15 For readers interested in
the understanding of spirituality outside Christianity, perhaps one should
start with Jewish spirituality. 16 The rage of the age is pluralism, or perhaps syncretism. Thus one recent book attempts to tie spirituality to western depth psychology, eastern meditation, Christian thought, and the
author's own experience. 17 It takes a sociologist to advise us that baby
boomers are attempting to define spirituality in a new way. 18 Another
writer insists that the change from a typographic culture to an electronic
culture "is altering our sense of ourselves and our definition of religious
experience and spirituality" (I am getting nervous as I pound this out on
my computer). 19
Some of the problems are terminological. For instance, while evangelicals write not only technical commentaries on Biblical books but also "devotional" commentaries, Catholics write not only technical commentaries
10
R J Foster, The Celebration of Discipline (2d ed , San Francisco H a r p e r , 1978), R Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life (Downers Grove InterVarsity, 1979), Revival as a Way of Life
(Downers Grove InterVarsity, 1985)
11
E g J I Packer, Knowing God (London Hodder and Stoughton, 1973), A Quest for Godliness The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton Crossway, 1990)
12
Anonymous, Orthodox Spirituality
An Outline of the Orthodox Ascetical and Mystical
Tra
dition (2d ed , London SPCK, 1978)
3
J Saward, Perfect Fools Folly for Christ's Sake in Catholic and Orthodox Spirituality
(Oxford Oxford University, 1980)
14
E g M D Guiñan, Gospel Poverty Witness to the Risen Christ A Study in Biblical
Spirituality (New York Paulist, 1981)
15
E g Ρ Culbertson, New Adam
The Future of Male Spirituality
(Minneapolis Fortress,
1992)
16
Cf Jewish Spirituality
from the Bible through the Middle Ages (ed A Green, New York
Crossroad, 1985), Jewish Spirituality
from the Sixteenth!Century
Revival to the Present (ed
A Green, New York Crossroad, 1988)
17
D Evans, Spirituality
and Human Nature (Albany S t a t e University of New York, 1993)
18
W C Roof, A Generation of Seekers The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation
(San Francisco H a r p e r , 1993)
19
R Thieme, "Computer Applications for Spirituality The Transformation of Religious Experience," ATR 75 (1993) 345!358
386
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
but also "spiritual" commentaries. 2 0 Recently a Protestant has adopted a
somewhat similar tack: Barton's book on the gospels is not interested in
the "devotional" approach but on exploring the gospels to find out what
they can tell us about "the sense of the divine presence and living in the
light of that presence." 2 1 He locates a great deal of the "spirituality" of the
gospels—that is, the sense of the divine presence illustrated in or advocated by the gospels—in the spirituality of Jesus (i.e. in Jesus' own experience of the divine presence). There is much more of Jesus as example or
prototype than of Jesus as Savior or Lord. The two themes do not have to
be antithetical, but one of them is hardly heard in this book.
The discipline of the historical study of spirituality also continues apace,
usually from a vantage point of strong advocacy. As compared with the
earlier histories of Pourrat and Bouyer, these works tend to reflect much
broader definitions (explicit or implicit) of spirituality, typical of the last
three decades that have suffered from the driving impact of philosophical
pluralism. 2 2 Thus in a book on Asian Christian spirituality the opening address by Samuel Rayan, a Jesuit theologian from India, proposes this definition for spirituality: "To be spiritual is to be ever more open and response!
able to reality." 2 3 Another recent history of spirituality constantly stresses
the importance of feminist spirituality and rejoices that Christian spirituality is plural (Orthodox, Catholic, Reformed, whatever) and must become
more culturally diverse, even while warning that "in this movement outwards, it is not helpful to be rootless or to wander aimlessly from one spiritual culture to another in search for somewhere to be at home. To enter
fruitfully into the unfamiliar one needs a real sense of where one belongs." 24
A recent book on Reformed spirituality includes a breadth of perspectives
that many believers in the Reformed tradition would find hard to recognize. 2 5 Even some recent important works on theology have been heavily
influenced by contemporary trends in spirituality. 2 6 Evangelicals have
20
E g L Doohan, Luke The Perennial Spirituality (Santa Fe Bear, 1982)—to cite but one
example from scores of entries See in particular the Michael Glazier series on different Biblical
books "for spiritual reading "
21
S C Barton, The Spirituality of the Gospels (London SPCK, 1992)
On which cf D A Carson, "Christian Witness in an Age of Pluralism," God and Culture
Festschrift for Carl F H Henry (ed D A Carson and J D Woodbridge, Grand Rapids Eerd!
mans, 1993) 31!66
23
Asian Christian Spirituality Reclaiming Traditions (ed V Fabella, Ρ Κ H Lee and D Κ
Suh, Maryknoll Orbis, 1992) 22
24
Ρ Sheldrake, Spirituality and History Questions of Interpretation and Method (New York
Crossroad, 1991), esp 210
5
H L Rice, Reformed Spirituality An Introduction for Believers (Louisville Westminster/
John Knox, 1991)
26
E g J Moltmann, The Spirit of Life A Universal Affirmation (London SCM, 1992) Part 1
deals with "Experiences of the Spirit," including a section on the spirituality of Jesus When
Moltmann outlines a "theology of mystical experience," mystical means "the intensity of the experience of God in faith " One reviewer, though deeply appreciative, comments "The whole is
passionate and impressionistic, authentic as a piece of literary art, and curiously unsatisfactory
as a rational account of anything in particular" (G Newlands in ExpTim 104 [1993] 148) Of
course some might judge this characteristic to be an advantage
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY SPIRITUAL?
387
plunged into this discussion. ' One recent evangelical writer, after arguing
that evangelicals who are ignorant of their own rich heritage of spirituality
(he was thinking not least of the Puritans) are in danger of constantly borrowing the forms of other heritages, 28 rather strangely insists that the modern pace of life makes it "quite unrealistic" to present Christians with the
demand to read the Bible and pray daily. 29 One wonders exactly what one
is to learn from the historical highpoints of evangelical spirituality, which
were very much rooted in the "spirituality of the word."
My concern, then, in this potted survey of spirituality is to bring to light
the implicit and explicit definitions that the literature casts up. My survey
has been neither deep nor broad, but perhaps it has cast up enough evidence
for some useful reflection on the problems of definition.
II. REFLECTIONS ON THE CURRENT USE OF "SPIRITUALITY"
In what follows in this section I wish to articulate a number of inferences
from the literature cited about the way "spirituality" as a term is used.
1. Spirituality is a theological construct. There is no way of getting direct access to what is good or bad about spirituality, or about any particular
study of spirituality, by appealing to, say, Biblical texts that discuss spirituality because, so far as the term is concerned, none does.
Moreover it is not a theological construct whose constituent components
are widely agreed on. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is also a
theological construct. It may be believed or denied, articulated in a number
of ways, set into the fabric of Christian theology and life in quite different
arrays. But the substance of the doctrine, not least the array of its basic
constituent theological parts, is not under dispute among informed confessional thinkers, 30 however warm and complex the dispute may be when it
comes to precise and refined definition and defense of the details. To put
the matter another way, however disputed the doctrine of the Trinity may
be, all parties know what the dispute is about. By contrast, spirituality is
a person-variable synthetic theological construct: One must always inquire
as to what components enter into the particular construct advocated or assumed by a particular writer and what components are being left out. Only
rarely are such matters made explicit. Readers are constantly trying to infer what theological underpinnings are presupposed.
7
Alive to God: Studies in Spirituality. Festschrift for James Houston (ed. J. I. Packer and
L. Wilkinson; Downers Grove: 1992).
28
A. E. McGrath, Evangelical Spirituality: Past Glories, Present Hopes, Future Possibilities
(London: St. Antholin's Lectureship Charity Trustees, 1993); "Borrowed Spiritualities," Christianity Today 37/13 (November 8, 1993) 20-21.
29
McGrath, Evangelical 13.
30
I add "informed" because I wish to rule out massively misinformed caricatures of the doctrine of the Trinity, such as the one held by a fair bit of street-level Islam—namely, that the
doctrine teaches God is made up of three persons, Father, Mary, and Jesus (the first impregnating the second to produce the third).
388
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
2. Because mutually contradictory theologies may undergird these personvariable definitions of spirituality, the degree of real commonality among
those working on the topic may be minimal. For example, the Annand Center for Spiritual Growth at the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale University,
according to its brochure, has on its board strong syncretists, liberal Protestants, Catholics, and a Hindu spiritual master in the Vedic tradition. 31 Its
teachers include local Episcopalian charismatics. The fact remains that the
different understandings of spirituality represented by different world religions need careful delineation.32 The sheer diversity of the implicit theological structures means that the meaning of "spirituality" degenerates into
something amorphous like "an experience of the numinous," in which everyone loads "numinous" with that which is right in his or her own eyes. It is
presupposed that such experiences of the numinous are a good thing, whatever the numinous consists in. Suddenly spirituality becomes something of a
Trojan horse that introduces the most radical religious pluralism into what
is nominally a Christian enterprise.
From a Christian perspective, worship is not only a verb, as Robert Webber likes to remind us, 3 3 but a transitive verb, and the most important
thing about it is its direct object. We worship God, the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and all other worship is in some measure idolatrous,
however much the gifts of common grace have preserved within such alien
worship some insight into spiritual realities. To put the matter another
way: Not every experience of the numinous, whether understood psychologically and/or as some engagement with the spiritual world, can be properly
considered a "spiritual" experience in any NT sense. In short, not all spirituality is spiritual.
3. Spirituality may devolve into a technique. By the application of certain disciplines—study, fasting, prayer, self-denial, whatever—one seeks a
more intimate experience of the numinous, however the numinous be understood. The two questions that must then be asked are these: (1) To what
extent are such techniques value-neutral? (2) To what extent are they
transportable?
These are not easy questions about which to give generalizing answers,
though it is fairly easy to think up examples that illustrate quite different
problems. Consider four examples.
First, part of spirituality (in this sense of technique and discipline) for
the educated Hindu will be the careful reading of the Vedas and other Hindu
scriptures. How well can that be transported to, say, evangelical Christianity? Is not the actual reading of sacred texts, or texts perceived to be sacred, value-neutral?
3
Viz. Pundat Ravi Shankar—though I am told he is no longer on the board. I am grateful
to the Rev. J. Ashley Null for bringing this particular instance to my attention.
32
For an attempt to sort out Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim understandings of spirituality cf.
the relevant chapters of Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World (ed. D. A. Carson;
Exeter: Paternoster, 1990).
33
R. E. Webber, Worship Is a Verb (Waco: Word, 1987).
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY SPIRITUAL?
389
As a Christian I would respond by saying that at one level the Hindu example can be transported to Christianity fairly well. Of course what is read
is different: Our Scriptures are not their scriptures. Nevertheless we would
surely want to tie Christian spirituality to the thoughtful reading of the
Bible. So I suppose it could be said that this practice, this technique, is
transportable. But what, exactly, is being transported? If it is something
like "the reading of texts perceived to be sacred," then although the practice
is transportable it is not value-neutral. For there are many texts that are
perceived to be sacred that are not, from my perspective, anything of the
kind—including the Book of Mormon and the Bhagavad-Gita. I deny, therefore, that the reading of texts perceived to be sacred is inherently a good
thing. I deny that the act is value-neutral. It is merely the mechanical art
of reading that is value-neutral—which is surely not saying very much.
Second, suppose I turn to the breathing and concentration exercises connected with yoga. How well can they be transported to Christianity? And
are they value-neutral?
At one level, surely the breathing exercises are intrinsically value-neutral: One learns a slightly different set in preparation for natural childbirth. But the association of certain breathing exercises with concentration
on a black dot on an expanse of white, coupled with the chanting of mantras
in order to achieve a state of dissociation associated with achieving a higher
state of "spirituality," is something else. How much ofthat is transportable
to Christianity? Not very much—certainly not the chanting of mantras,
still less the kind of meditation that is characterized by concentration on a
spot on a blank expanse. I suppose certain breathing and relaxation exercises that help some uptight people to relax are unobjectionable. And if the
purpose of such relaxation were to enable the person to concentrate in meditation and prayer on the Bible, I suppose this could be labeled part of a
technique for growing in Christian spirituality. But it is getting pretty far
removed: It is more like a technique in preparation for the discipline that
could then genuinely be labeled Christian rather than an exercise in "spirituality" per se.
Third, consider the Lord's supper, holy communion. Is participation by
a genuine Christian always a good thing? Surely if any spiritual discipline
is not value-neutral, this is it, is it not? But is it transportable?
Once again the answers are not as simple as one might like. Surely nothing of significance here is transportable. True, some other religions have
rituals of eating, but all of the associations connected with the Lord's table
are quite radically unlike the eating rituals of other religions. The naked
act of eating may be value-neutral, but the Lord's table is not a naked act
of eating.
Nor is participation, even by genuine believers, always a good thing. For
many of the problems in the Corinthian church Paul has a sort of "Yes, but"
answer: "Yes, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but since there is
so much immorality each man should have his own wife" (1 Cor 7:1-2);
"Yes, an idol is nothing at all in the world, but not everyone knows this"
(8:4, 7); and so on. But with respect to the Lord's table Paul writes: "In the
390
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more
harm than good" (11:17). This is not, it transpires, because the celebration
of the Lord's supper becomes an intrinsically evil act but because relationships within the congregation are selfish and thoughtless, and the sin is
both unconfessed and unrecognized. So here we have a spiritual discipline
that is not value-neutral (it is surely intrinsically good), not transportable,
but can become thoroughly bad, not on intrinsic grounds but because of sins
in the congregation.
Finally, what about various vows of self-denial practiced by medieval
monastics? Can they be transported? Are they value-free, so that they can
be detached from medieval Catholicism?
Certainly our generation could do with some self-discipline. We remember, say, Paul's determination in 9:24-27, and we are ashamed of our sloth
and indolence. But vows of chastity are not something that a married believer should undertake, unless it is in agreement with one's spouse for a
strictly limited period and in order to set aside time for prayer (7:5). A vow
of chastity undertaken by a celibate person might be a good thing, but not
if it is merely a frustrating attempt to suppress lust (7:9). Vows of poverty
or relative poverty might be entirely salutary in this hedonistic and profligate age, but they might also prompt pride or foster merit theology. What
about vows of silence? Some quiet in our noisy, self-expressive age would
surely be a good thing. But how easily can, say, the Trappist vows of silence
undertaken by Thomas Merton be disassociated from his deepening devotion to Mary as the "mother of God"? How about self-flagellation? Can it
have any place whatever in a system of thought that has truly grasped the
freedom of the grace of God provided in the death and resurrection of his
Son Jesus Christ? How intrinsically is it tied to medieval notions of elitist
perfectionism not open to ordinary Christians?
In short, one cannot assume approaches to spirituality that are little more
than discussions of technique, as if there were no hidden shoals to avoid.
III. SOME PRIORITIES FOR CHRISTIANS
I write out of evangelical convictions. The following brief points frankly
reflect those commitments, though of course I cannot here defend them.
Moreover the few points I make are rather more in the nature of priming
the pump than of magisterial articulation. Almost every item could do with
a lengthy chapter.
My fear is that many charismatics and, increasingly, many noncharismatic evangelicals, having emerged from the shadows of a fairly narrow and
parochial heritage into the broader streams of Church history, are in danger
of overcompensating and taking on board almost anything, provided it falls
under the rubric of "spirituality." Yet at the same time there is much to learn
about spiritual life, as about theology, from many of those with whom we disagree. If spirituality, with all its intellectual fuzziness, is not to become the
new summum bonum by which all things are to be tested but must itself be
brought to the test of holy Scripture, what priorities can help us preserve a
healthy perspective without retreating into entrenched traditionalism?
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY SPIRITUAL?
391
1. Spirituality must be thought of in connection with the gospel.
There
may be some heuristic and historical value in conceiving of spirituality in
purely neutral terms (the experience of the numinous, the study of such experience, or the like). But from a confessional, Christian perspective it is
worse than useless. It is dangerous. To put matters bluntly, if the gospel is
true, what will be the value, fifty billion years from now, of spending time
in this life meditating on a black spot on a white expanse while chanting
mantras? 34 Questions as to the nature of spirituality, the purpose of the putative experience of the transcendent, the nature of the God who is the ultimate source of the experience, the locus of the revelation he has given of
himself, and the techniques and forms by which we may ostensibly know
him better, must be brought to the test of the gospel. For it is the gospel
that is the power of God unto salvation; it is by faith in God's Son that we
know the Father; it is by the cross and resurrection that we who were alienated from God have been reconciled to our Maker, Judge and Redeemer.
2. Christian reflection on spirituality must work outward from the center.
During the past twenty years or so there has been a quite frightening tendency to assume the center without really being able to articulate much
about it, and then to gravitate to the periphery. Indeed the tendency has
been to focus on some element on the periphery, which then attracts our passion, interest and time. It is not that Christians should avoid thinking
through the changing agendas on the periphery. We must. But if all our time
and passion are devoted to abortion, styles of worship, women's ordination,
church government, counseling techniques, the latest sociology report, or
the best advertised marriage seminar, largely detached from the core of Biblical theology, then sooner or later the periphery is in danger of displacing
the core—at least in our affections and energy, and perhaps in our theology
(or that of our children).
So it is with spirituality. If spirituality becomes an end in itself, detached
from the core and largely without Biblical or theological norms to define it
and anchor it in the objective gospel, then pursuit of spirituality, however
nebulously defined, will degenerate into nothing more than the pursuit of
certain kinds of experience. 35 I must reiterate that I am not for that reason
writing off all pursuit of all forms of spirituality. I shall say more about that
in my next point. But spirituality must be thought about and sought after out
of the matrix of core Biblical theology.
3. At the same time we should be rightly suspicious of forms of theology
that place all the emphasis on coherent systems of thought that demand faith,
I am sure my friends who are devoted to syncretism and philosophical pluralism will be
suitably aghast at this point and dismiss my stance as ignorant hubris. In current literature,
however, there is more hubris (not to mention cultural bias) attached to the absolute proposition
that no religion can take precedence over another in its claims to truth. I have tried to wrestle
with some of these matters in "Christian Witness," cited in n. 22, and hope to do so at greater
length in Christianity and Pluralism (forthcoming).
It is at this juncture that I sometimes have misgivings about some of the priorities of
H. J. M. Nouwen—from whom, nevertheless, there is much to be learned. Cf. e.g. his Life of the
392
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
allegiance and obedience but do not engage the affections, let alone foster an
active sense of the presence of God. If the kingdom of God has to do with
"righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 14:18), we must not
reduce it to righteousness and systems of thought. The Spirit whom Jesus
bequeathed to his followers is the Spirit announced as part of the newness
of the new covenant (Ezekiel 36/John 3; Joel 2/Acts 2): He not only convicts
the world (John 16) but also lives in believers (Rom 8:9), leading them (8:14)
and testifying with their spirit that they are God's children (8:16).
This is not at all to suggest that the experience of the presence of the
transcendent/personal God of the Bible should ever be considered as something entirely apart from holy living, self-discipline, love for others, solemn
and enthusiastic praise, hatred of sin, conformity to Christ, ongoing confession and repentance, growth in understanding God's Word, and more. It
is to say that there is a certain kind of evangelicalism that tries to think of
holy living, self-discipline, love for others, solemn and enthusiastic praise,
hatred of sin, conformity to Christ, ongoing confession and repentance,
growth in understanding God's Word, and more, as discrete factors divorced
from any experience of the Spirit. The Spirit becomes a creedal item and
nothing more. Sometimes this stance is simply an overreaction to the obvious excesses of the charismatic movement. But whatever its cause it stands
against both Scripture and the entire heritage of the best of Christianity
where men and women, by God's grace, know God. True, that knowledge of
God, mediated by the Spirit, is concomitant with the things I have just
listed, and more besides. But it is real knowledge of the living God, not a
mere mental image (like a mental image of, say, Peter Pan) that serves no
real purpose other than to order the system of thought we call theology.
Certainly in times of revival (I use the term in its historic sense, not in
one or more of its modern, degenerate senses), but at other times as well,
Christians have known the presence of God so powerfully that they walk
before him with a holy reverence and a genuine, persistent acknowledgment of his majesty and grace that is life-transforming. If the knowledge
of the true God and of his Son Jesus Christ whom he has sent means eternal life (John 17:3), we must examine very carefully what the knowledge
of God really is and embrace it wholly. If such life-transforming knowledge of God lies at the focus of what is meant by "spirituality," which then
stands over against a merely traditional adherence to a creed no matter
how orthodox, then let us stress spirituality.
4. Nevertheless, what God uses to foster this kind of gospel spirituality
must be carefully delineated. Only God himself gives life. It is God who
discloses himself, not only in the great acts of redemptive history but also
by his Spirit to "natural" men and women (1 Cor 2:14) who do not have the
Beloved Spiritual Living in a Secular World (New York Crossroad, 1993) His popularity
across almost all confessional lines is, I think, possible precisely because his attractive emphasis on spirituality is not very well anchored in the gospel
WHEN IS SPIRITUALITY SPIRITUAL?
393
Spirit of God and cannot understand the things of God. He reveals himself
to Christians who mature and take on board a Biblical view of things (Phil
3:15). But normally God uses means. What are they?
It is precisely at this point that evangelicals need to reclaim their heritage. People speak of the spirituality of sacraments, or the spirituality of
poverty, or the spirituality of silence. It is true that God may become very
real to his people in the context of poverty. It is true that the corporate celebration of the Lord's supper may be a time of self-examination, confession,
forgiveness, joy in the Holy Spirit. There are many means of grace. But
perhaps the most important means of grace, certainly the means of grace
almost entirely unmentioned in current publication on spirituality, is the
Word of God.
On the night he was betrayed, Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them by the
truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17)—and there will never be much sanctification apart from the word of truth. It is the entrance of God's Word that
brings light. It is constant meditation on God's law that distinguishes the
wise from the unwise, the just from the unjust (Psalm 1). I do not deny that
certain kinds of Bible study can be singularly arid, skeptical, merely formal, just as certain approaches to the Lord's table may do more harm than
good (1 Cor 11:17 ff.). But the heavy stress in Scripture on understanding,
absorbing, meditating upon, proclaiming, memorizing ("hiding it in one's
heart"), reading, and hearing the word of God is so striking that it will be
ignored at our peril. That is why the best of the evangelical heritage has always emphasized what might be called the spirituality of the Word.
It is within this framework that other "techniques," rightly deployed,
may be of some value. If self-denial is merely an attempt to commend ourselves to God, or a way of feeling good about oneself (which feeling we then
mistake for being spiritual), it is positively dangerous. But if self-denial is
part of our response of gratitude and faith to the God who has manifested
the greatest self-denial of all in the death of his Son, and if it thus aids our
concentration on his Word, our obedience of it and our delight in it, then it
is surely a good thing that will foster spiritual growth. One may work
through most of the proffered "techniques" with the same word-centered
perspective controlling the evaluation: journaling, quiet days, accountability/prayer groups, and so forth.
5. Finally, such Word-centered reflection will bring us back to the fact
that spirituality, as we have seen, is a theological construct. We will be
forced to revise our construct in terms of what we find in the Scriptures. If
spirituality is related to the knowledge of God by his Spirit, then the experience of genuine spirituality must be tied to what it means to have the
Spirit. In one sense, then, all those who by God's grace exercise saving faith
in Christ Jesus have the Spirit (Rom 8:9) and are "spiritual" (1 Cor 2: l e lo). But then we are to "live by the Spirit" (Gal 5:16), and that means selfconsciously putting to death the "acts of sinful nature" and producing the
"fruit of the Spirit": There is a profoundly moral and ethical dimension to
spirituality. The Spirit is also the one who enables and empowers believers
394
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
to testify about Jesus (John 15:26-27; Acts 4:8; etc.): There is a kerygmatic
dimension to spirituality. The Spirit is the arrabön, the down payment and
guarantee of the promised inheritance: There is an eschatological dimension to spirituality, as the bride, the Church, joins the Spirit in crying,
"Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22). And so we could go on, adding dimensions to any construct of spirituality controlled by the Word of God, correcting ourselves and our experience by Scripture, so that we may enjoy the
fullness of the heritage that is ours in Christ Jesus while remaining entirely
unwilling to be seduced by every passing fad. Only then shall we approach
an all-of-life approach to spirituality—every aspect of human existence,
personal and corporate, brought under the discipline of the Word of God,
brought under the consciousness that we live in the presence of God, by his
grace and for his glory. We shall cry to God that all our expressions of spirituality may be truly spiritual. 36
36
A slightly shorter version of this paper has been published in Portuguese: "Quando a Espiritualidade é Espiritual: Reflexöes Sobre Alguns Problemas de Definiçâo," Chamado Para Servir. Festschrift for Russell Shedd (ed. A. Pieratt; Sao Paulo: Ediçôes Vida Nova, 1994).